NCLT Kolkata: Section 60(5) IBC Cannot Be Invoked Post-Resolution Plan Approval to Seek CIRP Records

April 8, 2026 : The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench has ruled that its residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be exercised after approval of a resolution plan to seek disclosure of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) records or to reopen issues that have already attained finality.

The Bench comprising Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Siddharth Mishra (Technical Member) dismissed an application filed by state tax authorities seeking access to CIRP-related documents of Adhunik Alloys and Power Limited, including forensic audit reports, valuation details, audited financial statements, and records relating to contingent liabilities.

The corporate debtor had been admitted into CIRP on 23 August 2017, and a resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant was approved on 7 December 2018. The approval order was not challenged and had attained finality. Nearly three years later, the applicants approached the Tribunal seeking disclosure of documents, contending that such records were necessary to verify how their dues had been treated under the resolution plan and to defend related proceedings.

The applicants argued that their claims had been classified as contingent liabilities and written off, and that they were not provided access to CIRP documents during the process. They further contended that disclosure was necessary in the interest of natural justice and to examine compliance with Section 30(2) of the Code.

The Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant opposed the application, submitting that it was not maintainable since it had been filed long after approval of the resolution plan. They also contended that the applicants were not part of the Committee of Creditors and were not entitled to access confidential CIRP documents such as valuation reports and forensic audits, which are protected under the statutory framework.

The Tribunal framed the central issue as whether an application under Section 60(5) is maintainable after approval of a resolution plan. Answering the issue in the negative, it reiterated that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the Code, it becomes binding on all stakeholders and results in finality of claims, with any claims not included in the plan standing extinguished.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta, the Tribunal emphasised that the insolvency framework is designed to provide certainty and allow the successful resolution applicant to take over the corporate debtor on a “clean slate,” free from undecided or revived claims.

The Bench observed that permitting disclosure of CIRP records at such a belated stage would effectively reopen settled issues and defeat the purpose of the Code. It noted that a significant period had elapsed since approval of the resolution plan, no appeal had been filed within limitation, and the rights and obligations arising out of the plan had crystallised.

Holding that its residuary jurisdiction cannot be used to direct production of CIRP documents or revisit issues after plan approval, the Tribunal dismissed the application as not maintainable, reiterating that post-approval interventions cannot be permitted to unsettle the finality of the resolution process.

Case Title: State Bank of India v. Adhunik Alloys and Power Limited & Ors.
Case No.: I.A. (IBC) No. 521/KB/2021 in CP (IBC) No. 387/KB/2017
Coram: Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) & Siddharth Mishra (Technical Member)